walton neighbourhood plan - walton-pc.gov.uk · walton neighbourhood plan independent examiner’s...

Walton Neighbourhood Plan Independent Examiner’s Report Final Rosemary Kidd MRTPI Planning Consultant

WALTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

Submission Draft Version

A report to Leeds City Council

into the examination of the

Walton Neighbourhood Plan

by Independent Examiner, Rosemary Kidd

Rosemary Kidd, Dip TP, MRTPI

NPIERS Independent Examiner

4 July 2018


Contents:

Page

1 Summary 3

2 Introduction 4

3 The Neighbourhood Plan - as a Whole 14

The Neighbourhood Plan - Policies 15

4 Referendum 31

5 Background Documents 32

6 Summary of Recommendation 33


1.0 Summary

1.1 The Walton Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared to set out the

community’s wishes for this parish which contains the village of Walton, part

of the Thorp Arch Estate and surrounding countryside.

1.2 I have made a number of recommendations in this report in order to make the

wording of the policies and their application clearer including improvements to

the mapping of sites referred to in policies to ensure that the Plan meets the

Basic Conditions. Section 6 of the report sets out a schedule of the

recommended modifications.

1.3 The main recommendations concern:

• Deleting Local Green Space sites LGS2 and LGS3;

• Revising Policy HG2 to identify the proposed play area and village green

as new green space proposals;

• Deleting Policy HG6, Policy H5, part of Policy T2 and part of Policy BE3;

• Clarification of the wording of policies and the supporting text; and

• Improvements to the mapping of policies.

1.4 Subject to the recommended modifications being made to the Neighbourhood

Plan, I am able to confirm that I am satisfied that the Walton Neighbourhood

Plan satisfies the Basic Conditions and that the Plan should proceed to

referendum.


2.0 Introduction

Background Context

2.1 This report sets out the findings of the examination into the Walton

Neighbourhood Plan (referred to as the WNP throughout this report).

2.2 Walton Parish lies about two miles to the north-east of Wetherby within the

boundary of the Leeds Metropolitan District. It is a rural parish with an historic

village at its core containing a conservation area and several listed buildings.

The parish also contains about half of the former Royal Ordnance Filling

Factory, now the Thorp Arch Estate which is a major employer with large

commercial businesses. In 2011 there were 225 people living in Walton in 96

households.

Appointment of the Independent Examiner

2.3 I was appointed as an independent examiner to conduct the examination of

the Walton Neighbourhood Plan by Leeds City Council with the consent of

Walton Parish Council in December 2017. I do not have any interest in any

land that may be affected by the WNP nor do I have any professional

commissions in the area currently and I possess appropriate qualifications

and experience. I am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute with

over 30 years’ experience in local authorities preparing Local Plans and

associated policies. My appointment was facilitated through the

Neighbourhood Planning Independent Examiner Referral Service.

Role of the Independent Examiner

2.4 As an independent Examiner, I am required to determine, under paragraph

8(1) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, whether the

legislative requirements are met:

• The Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared and submitted for

examination by a qualifying body as defined in Section 61F of the Town

and Country Planning Act 1990 as applied to neighbourhood plans by

section 38A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004;

• The Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared for an area that has been

designated under Section 61G of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 as applied to neighbourhood plans by section 38A of the Planning

and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004;

• The Neighbourhood Plan meets the requirements of Section 38B of the

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the Plan must specify the

period to which it has effect, must not include provisions relating to

‘excluded development’, and must not relate to more than one

Neighbourhood Area); and

• The policies relate to the development and use of land for a designated

Neighbourhood Area in line with the requirements of the Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Section 38A.


2.5 An Independent Examiner must consider whether a neighbourhood plan

meets the “Basic Conditions”. The Basic Conditions are set out in paragraph

8(2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as applied to

neighbourhood plans by section 38A of the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase Act 2004. The Basic Conditions are:

1. having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance

issued by the Secretary of State it is appropriate to make the

neighbourhood plan;

2. the making of the neighbourhood plan contributes to the achievement of

sustainable development;

3. the making of the neighbourhood plan is in general conformity with the

strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the

authority (or any part of that area);

4. the making of the neighbourhood plan does not breach, and is otherwise

compatible with, EU obligations; and

5. prescribed conditions are met in relation to the plan and prescribed

matters have been complied with in connection with the proposal for the

neighbourhood plan. The following prescribed condition relates to

neighbourhood plans:

o Regulation 32 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General)

Regulations 2012 (as amended) sets out a further Basic Condition

in addition to those set out in the primary legislation. That the

making of the neighbourhood plan is not likely to have a significant

effect on a European site (as defined in the Conservation of

Habitats and Species Regulations 2012) or a European offshore

marine site (as defined in the Offshore Marine Conservation

(Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007) (either alone or in

combination with other plans or projects). (See Schedule 2 to the

Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as

amended).

2.6 Under the terms of the neighbourhood planning legislation I am required to

make one of three possible recommendations:

• That the plan should proceed to referendum on the basis that it meets all

the legal requirements;

• That the plan should proceed to referendum if modified; or

• That the plan should not proceed to referendum on the basis that it does

not meet all the legal requirements.

2.7 If recommending that the Neighbourhood Plan is submitted to referendum my

report must also recommend whether the area for the referendum should

extend beyond the neighbourhood area to which the Neighbourhood Plan

relates, and if to be extended, the nature of that extension.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/schedule/9/enacted

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/schedule/9/enacted

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/637/part/9/made

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/637/part/9/made

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/235/made

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/637/schedule/2/made

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/637/schedule/2/made




2.8 The role of an Independent Examiner of a neighbourhood plan is defined. I

am not examining the test of soundness provided for in respect of

examination of Local Plans. It is not within my role to comment on how the

plan could be improved but rather to focus on whether the submitted

Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions and Convention rights, and

the other statutory requirements.

2.9 It is a requirement that my report must give reasons for each of its

recommendations and contain a summary of its main findings. I have only

recommended modifications to the Neighbourhood Plan (presented in bold

type) where I consider they need to be made so that the plan meets the Basic

Conditions and the other requirements.

The Examination Process

2.10 The presumption is that the neighbourhood plan will proceed by way of an

examination of written evidence only. However, the Examiner can ask for a

public hearing in order to hear oral evidence on matters which he or she

wishes to explore further or so that a person has a fair chance to put a case.

2.11 I have sought clarification on a number of factual matters from the qualifying

body and/or the local planning authority in writing. I am satisfied that the

responses received have enabled me to come to a conclusion on these

matters without the need for a hearing.

2.12 I had before me background evidence to the plan which has assisted me in

understanding the background to the matters raised in the Neighbourhood

Plan. I have considered the documents set out in Section 5 of this report in

addition to the Submission draft of the Walton Neighbourhood Plan 2017 –

2033.

2.13 I have considered the Basic Conditions Statement and the Consultation

Statement as well as the screening reports for the Strategic Environmental

Assessment and Habitats Regulation Assessment. In my assessment of each

policy I have commented on how the policy has had regard to national

policies and advice and whether the policy is in general conformity with

relevant strategic policies, as appropriate.

2.14 I have undertaken an unaccompanied visit to the Plan area and viewed the

sites referred to under the policies in the plan.

Legislative Requirements

Qualifying Body

2.15 The neighbourhood plan making process has been led by Walton Parish

Council which is a “qualifying body” under the Neighbourhood Planning

legislation which entitles them to lead the plan making process. The Plan was

prepared by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group.


2.16 I am satisfied that the requirements set out in the Localism Act (2011) and in

Section 61F(1) and (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act (as applied to

neighbourhood plans by section 38A of the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase Act) have been met.

The Plan Area

2.17 The Neighbourhood Plan area is co-terminus with the parish of Walton prior

to the minor amendments to the boundary with Thorp Arch parish undertaken

in 2014. The Neighbourhood Area was designated on the 17 September 2012

by Leeds City Council. Paragraph 1.2 of the Neighbourhood Plan incorrectly

suggests that the parish boundary review was undertaken in 2015. A

modification is recommended to section 1.2 to better the explain the review

process. The Qualifying Body has confirmed that there are no other

neighbourhood plans relating to that area.

2.18 This satisfies the requirements of preparing a Neighbourhood Development

Plan under section 61G (1) (2) and (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 (as applied to neighbourhood plans by section 38A of the Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Ac 2004) and regulations 5, 6 and 7 of the

Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.

Recommendation 1: Revise the second paragraph of section 1.2 to read

“Following a review of the Parish boundary in 2014, the City Council

approached both Walton and Thorp Arch Parish Councils in 2015

regarding the potential of changing the boundaries of the

Neighbourhood Areas to accord with the revised parish boundaries.

Following consideration by both Parish Councils it was agreed that the

Neighbourhood Plans should be based on the Neighbourhood Areas as

originally designated; the boundary for the Walton Neighbourhood Plan

is shown on Map 1.”

Plan Period

2.19 A neighbourhood plan must specify the period during which it is to have

effect. Paragraph 1.3 of the Basic Conditions states that the lifespan of the

Neighbourhood Plan is to extend to the end of 2033 and the front cover of the

Neighbourhood Plan shows the date 2017 - 2033.

Excluded Development

2.20 The Plan does not include provision for any excluded development: county

matters (mineral extraction and waste development), nationally significant

infrastructure or any matters set out in Section 61K of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990.

Development and use of land

2.21 The Neighbourhood Development Plan should only contain policies relating to

development and use of land. Subject to the modifications proposed, the


WNP policies would be compliant with this requirement of Section 38B of the

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended.

2.22 The submitted Plan contains a number of non-land use Community Actions

and these are clearly distinguished from the land use planning policies. In

Recommendation 17 I have proposed a modification to improve the wording

of the Plan to explain the role of the Community Actions.

2.23 I am satisfied therefore that the Walton Neighbourhood Plan satisfies all the

legal requirements set out in paragraph 2.4 above.

The Basic Conditions

Basic Condition 1 – Has regard to National Policy

2.24 The first Basic Condition is for the neighbourhood plan “to have regard to

national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of

State”. The requirement to determine whether it is appropriate that the plan is

made includes the words “having regard to”. This is not the same as

compliance, nor is it the same as part of the test of soundness provided for in

respect of examinations of Local Plans which requires plans to be “consistent

with national policy”.

2.25 The Planning Practice Guidance assists in understanding “appropriate”. In

answer to the question “What does having regard to national policy mean?”

the Guidance states a neighbourhood plan “must not constrain the delivery of

important national policy objectives.”

2.26 In considering the policies contained in the Plan, I have been mindful of the

guidance in the Planning Practice Guide (PPG) that:

“Neighbourhood planning gives communities direct power to develop a

shared vision for their neighbourhood and shape the development and growth

of their local area. They are able to choose where they want new homes,

shops and offices to be built, have their say on what those new buildings

should look like.”

2.27 In order to ensure that a neighbourhood plan can be an effective tool for the

decision maker, the PPG advises that:

“A policy in a neighbourhood plan should be clear and unambiguous. It should

be drafted with sufficient clarity that a decision maker can apply it consistently

and with confidence when determining planning applications. It should be

concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence. It should be distinct

to reflect and respond to the unique characteristics and planning context of

the specific neighbourhood area for which it has been prepared.”

2.28 NPPF paragraph 183 states that parishes can use neighbourhood planning to

set planning policies through neighbourhood plans to determine decisions on

planning applications. The Planning Practice Guidance on Neighbourhood


Plans states that neighbourhood plans should “support the strategic

development needs set out in the Local Plan” and further states that the

neighbourhood plan must address the development and use of land by setting

out planning policies to be used in determining planning applications because

once the plan is made it will become part of the statutory development plan.

2.29 Paragraph 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that those

producing neighbourhood plans should support the strategic development

needs set out in local plans, including policies for housing and economic

development. Qualifying bodies should plan positively to support local

development, shaping and directing development in their area that is outside

the strategic elements of the Local Plan. PPG guidance under Rural Housing

states that “all settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable

development in rural areas – and so blanket policies restricting housing

development in some settlements and preventing other settlements from

expanding should be avoided unless they can be supported by robust

evidence”.

2.30 I consider the extent to which the plan meets this Basic Condition No 1 in

Section 3 below.

Basic Condition 2 - Contributes to sustainable development

2.31 A qualifying body must demonstrate how a neighbourhood plan contributes to

the achievement of sustainable development. The NPPF as a whole

constitutes the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in

practice for planning. The NPPF explains that there are three dimensions to

sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.

2.32 There is no legal requirement for a formal Sustainability Appraisal (SA) to be

carried out in respect of neighbourhood plans. However, good practice

suggests that where neighbourhood plans are allocating land for development

an appraisal should be carried out.

2.33 Table 3 of the Basic Conditions Statement contains an assessment of the

sustainability of the Neighbourhood Plan’s policies in terms of how it will

deliver sustainable development with regards to economic, social and

environmental aspects. It shows that the Plan’s policies are, in the main,

either neutral in effect or will make Walton more sustainable. Further

evidence of the sustainability of the Plan is presented in the “Site assessment

and Rationale Report for the Walton Neighbourhood Development Plan”. I

consider that these documents demonstrate that Basic Condition 2 has been

met.

Basic Condition 3 – is in general conformity with strategic

policies in the development plan

2.34 The third Basic Condition is for the neighbourhood plan to be in general

conformity with the strategic policies contained in the Development Plan for

the area. The strategic policies covering the Neighbourhood Plan area are


contained in the Leeds Local Development Framework Core Strategy which

was adopted on 12th November 2014. Saved policies of the Leeds UDP 2006

are also extant.

2.35 Leeds City Council is preparing the Leeds Site Allocations Plan (SAP). It is

well advanced and currently at the examination stage with the revised

submission draft Plan being submitted to the Secretary of State on 23 March

2018. Whilst there may be some of the evidence base for this plan which has

a bearing on my consideration of the basic conditions, it is the Core Strategy

and UDP saved policies that currently set out the adopted strategic policies

and which must be used in assessing the plan against Basic Condition No 3.

2.36 The Council raised no concern over general conformity with the strategic

policies of the development plan. I consider in further detail in Section 3 below

the matter of general conformity with the strategic policies of the plan.

Basic Condition 4 – Compatible with EU obligations and human

rights requirements

2.37 A neighbourhood plan must be compatible with European Union obligations

as incorporated into UK law, in order to be legally compliant. Key directives

relate to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and the Habitats

and Wild Birds Directives. A neighbourhood plan should also take account of

the requirements to consider human rights.

2.38 Regulation 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations as amended in

2015 requires either that a Strategic Environmental Assessment is submitted

with a Neighbourhood Plan proposal or a determination from the responsible

authority (Leeds City Council) that the plan is not likely to have “significant

effects.”

2.39 A screening opinion for the purposes of Strategic Environmental Assessment

and Habitats Regulations Assessment was undertaken by Leeds City Council

in May 2017. The Screening Report concludes that:

“It is considered that it is unlikely that any significant environmental effects will

arise as a result of the draft Walton Neighbourhood Plan. Consequently, the

assessment within Table 1 concludes (subject to HRA screening outcome),

that an SEA is not required when judged against the application of the SEA

Directive criteria.

“No sensitive natural or heritage assets will be significantly affected by

proposals contained within the plan. The neighbourhood plan’s policies seek

to guide development within the Neighbourhood Area and are required to be

in general conformity with those within the Local Development Plan. Finally,

none of the environmental consultation bodies raised any concerns regarding

any likely significant environmental effects.”

2.40 The Neighbourhood Area is in relatively close proximity to the Kirk Deighton

Special Area of Conservation (SAC) - the only internationally-designated site

within a 15km radius of the Walton Neighbourhood Area boundary. However,


screening has determined that the draft Walton Plan is not likely to cause a

significant effect Kirk Deighton SAC or on any other European site.

Consequently the draft plan is not considered to require further assessment

under Article 6 or 7 of the Habitats Directive (Art. 3.2(b)).

2.41 The statutory environmental bodies: Historic England, Natural England and

the Environment Agency were consulted on the screening reports and they

concurred that no further assessment was required.

2.42 I am satisfied that the SEA and HRA screening opinions have been carried

out in accordance with the legal requirements.

2.43 The Basic Conditions Statement includes a section on Human Rights and

states in paragraph 6.1 that “The Neighbourhood Plan has regard to the

fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention

on Human Rights and complies with the Human Rights Act.”

2.44 However, no assessment has been provided of how the plan has had regard

to Human Rights. I have asked the Qualifying Body to confirm the steps they

have taken to ensure that the views of all sections of the community including

the hard to reach groups have been canvassed and taken into account in

preparing the Plan. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that they have

met the requirements of the Human Rights Act. It is, however, recommended

that an assessment of how the plan making process has had regard to

Human Rights should be included in the Basic Conditions Statement.

Recommendation 2: Include an assessment of how the plan has had regard to

the Human Rights Act in the Basic Conditions Statement.

2.45 I am not aware of any other European Directives which apply to this particular

Neighbourhood Plan and no representations at pre or post-submission stage

have drawn any others to my attention. Taking all of the above into account, I

am satisfied that subject to the modifications under Recommendation 2, the

WNP is compatible with EU obligations and therefore meets Basic Conditions

Nos 4 and 5.

Consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan

2.46 I am required under The Localism Act 2011 to check the consultation process

that has led to the production of the Plan. The requirements are set out in

Regulation 14 in The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.

2.47 The Consultation Statement sets out an overview of the various stages on

consultation that have been carried out during the preparation of the Walton

Neighbourhood Plan. It highlights the aims of each stage of the consultation

and the main themes that emerged. Feedback from each stage of the

consultation is recorded in the Appendices of the evidence report.

2.48 The preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan commenced in 2011 with a series

of community engagement activities and events – including letter drops;

village meetings; a consultation weekend in April 2012 along with external


stakeholder communication. It led to a draft Plan which was sent to Leeds

City Council in 2013 for early comment.

• November 2011 – June 2014, 11 Steering Group meetings were held

open to residents of the Parish.

• 28 – 29 April 2012 – weekend village open events, consultation on the

emerging Plan.

• October 2012, first draft of the Plan prepared.

• 2013 Draft Plan forwarded to Leeds City Council

2.49 However, following uncertainties around a 2,000 dwelling development

proposal in the adjacent parish of Thorp Arch, the Walton Neighbourhood

Plan was put on hold in 2014. The work was picked up for a second phase of

consultation in January 2016.

• Building the Picture – Initial Consultation (February 2016 – May 2016).

This was a period of building on and developing the earlier work of 2012.

Developing a future Vision for Walton and the early shaping of the

supporting Policies. This culminated in a village workshop on 14 May

2016.

• Themes and Propositions – Testing the Thinking (June 2016 – December

2016). Options for the vision were tested and potential housing sites

considered at the two day community consultation events at the village

hall in late June 2016.

• Intentions Document was circulated with a questionnaire on 30 September

2016. It comprised a summary view of the revised Vision and the Policy

Themes (heritage and green spaces; community facilities; transport;

housing and business/employment).

• Letters and meetings with businesses in the parish and those on the

nearby Thorp Arch Estate in 2017.

• Consultation with potential housing site owners in 2017.

• Written communication with external interested parties and stakeholders

between late 2016 and mid-2017

• Detailed conversations and engagement with key neighbouring parishes

took place on from early 2017.

2.50 The draft plan was consulted on under Regulation 14 from 19 August 2017 for

six weeks. A copy of a summary document was circulated to every home in

the Parish with a questionnaire. Two village meetings were held on 2 and 30

September. Full copies of the plan were available locally. Sixty-five

questionnaires were returned from this parish with 96 households. Statutory

consultees were informed of the consultation.

2.51 The Regulation 16 consultation on the Submission Draft Plan was undertaken

by Leeds City Council between 5 February and 19 March 2018. Twenty-eight

representations were received, some making several comments. Fifteen

representations gave general support to the proposals of the Neighbourhood

Plan or specific support to the proposals for new footpaths, the play area and

new housing.


2.52 I am satisfied that the pre-submission consultation and publicity has met the

requirements of Regulations 14, 15 and 16 in the Neighbourhood Planning

(General) Regulations 2012.

2.53 This report is the outcome of my examination of the Submission Draft Version

of the Walton Neighbourhood Plan 2017 - 2033. I am required to give reasons

for each of my recommendations and also provide a summary of my main

conclusions. My report makes recommendations based on my findings on

whether the Plan meets the Basic Conditions and provided the Plan is

modified as recommended, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the

Neighbourhood Plan to be made. If the plan receives the support of over 50%

of those voting then the Plan will be made following approval by Leeds City

Council.


3.0 Neighbourhood Plan – As a whole

3.1 The Neighbourhood Plan is considered against the Basic Conditions in this

section of the Report following the structure and headings in the Plan. Given

the findings in Section 2 above that the plan as a whole is compliant with

Basic Conditions No 4 (EU obligations) and other prescribed conditions, this

section largely focuses on Basic Conditions No 1 (Having regard to National

Policy), No 2 (Contributing to the achievement of Sustainable Development)

and No 3 (General conformity with strategic policies of the Development

Plan).

3.2 Where modifications are recommended, they are presented and clearly

marked as such and highlighted in bold print, with any proposed new wording

in italics.

3.3 Basic Condition 1 requires that the examiner considers whether the plan as a

whole has had regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance

issued by the Secretary of State. Before considering the policies individually, I

have considered whether the plan as a whole has had regard to national

planning policies and supports the delivery of sustainable development.

3.4 The Plan is clearly and coherently presented with policies and community

actions relating to heritage and green spaces, community facilities, transport,

housing, business and employment. Three sites are proposed for allocation

for housing development. The Community Actions are distinguished from the

planning policies by background shading. However, there is little to

distinguish the policies from the supporting text other than the policy heading.

It would be helpful to plan users if the policies were set out in bold text or set

in a surrounding box.

3.5 A Policies Map is included which shows the sites referred to in the Plan. This

is barely legible. Map 7 shows clearer maps of the three housing sites; it

would be helpful to plan users to include these site plans as inset maps to the

main Policies Map to ensure that the boundaries of the sites can be clearly

identified.

3.6 The key proposals of the Plan are set out in Policy H2. I have concerns that

no evidence has been presented with the Submission Plan to demonstrate

that the package of proposals is viable and deliverable in accordance with

national planning policy requirements. To address my concerns, the

Qualifying Body has undertaken an assessment of the viability of the

proposals which has demonstrated that the scheme is comfortably viable.

Recommendation 3: Distinguish the Plan’s policies from the supporting text,

for example by setting them in boxes. Include more detailed inset maps

of the sites on the Policies Map.


The Neighbourhood Plan - Policies

Introduction

3.7 The Introductory section of the Plan is well presented and gives a clear and

concise overview of the process of preparing the plan including a summary of

the consultation process and the site selection process. Section 2 gives a

brief history of the village and provides an overview of the community today. It

also highlights the history and development of the Thorp Arch Estate.

3.8 The Vision and Objectives were developed through community workshops

and consultation. The Vision seeks to strike a balance between modernising

and safeguarding the important assets. It “reflects a desire to develop,

improve and offer some carefully and sensitively managed modernisation to

ensure sustainability and to keep up with the times – but to do so in a way

that respects, values and builds on the village’s remarkable historical legacy.

It invites a sense of moving forward, but bringing the best of the protected

history with us.”

3.9 The Vision is “unpacked” into six objectives which are developed into the five

themes of the Plan. The introduction to each section identifies the relevant

objectives. Within each of the Policy chapters there is an explanation about

what the policies seek to achieve, the relevant Core Strategy policies and

evidence that supports them and the associated Community Actions which

represent a set of aspirations for the Walton Parish Council.

Heritage and Green Spaces

Policy HG1: Local Green Spaces

3.10 The policy proposes the designation of three sites as Local Green Spaces

under the provision of paragraph 76 – 77 of the NPPF.

3.11 Paragraph 77 sets out the factors to be used in assessing the suitability of

sites for designation as Local Green Space. It states “The Local Green Space

designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space. The

designation should only be used:

• where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community

it serves;

• where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and

holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty,

historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field),

tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and

• where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an

extensive tract of land.”


3.12 The Appendices includes a brief assessment of how the proposed sites

satisfy the factors set out in NPPF paragraph 77. However, I have particular

concerns about whether sites LGS2 and LGS3 satisfy the NPPF criteria.

3.13 Site LGS2 to the west of the Village Hall is currently part of an agricultural

field and there is no public access. The Parish Council is proposing that it

should become a new green space with a children’s play area. However, the

site has not yet been laid out. It is therefore considered that the site does not

satisfy the requirements of NPPF paragraph 77 in that it is not possible to

demonstrate that the area is a green area that is demonstrably special to the

local community and holds a particular local significance. However, as the

proposal is well advanced with a planning application under consideration, I

consider that it would be appropriate to include the site as a proposed new

green space under a revised Policy HG2 to help meet the identified shortfall

in the village.

3.14 Site LGS3 Ridge and Furrow Field is located at the corner of School Lane

and Wetherby Road. It is agricultural land and there is no public access. I

have asked the Qualifying Body to provide me with evidence to support the

historic significance of the site. They have stated that the ridge and furrow

features date from the late 1800s and were intended for drainage purposes.

However, the Walton Conservation Area Appraisal does not highlight any

historic significance of the field to distinguish it from other areas of agricultural

land around the village. The Conservation Area Appraisal notes the medieval

ridge and furrow land to the north of the church but makes no reference to

site LGS3.

3.15 I am not satisfied that the evidence provided demonstrates that the site has

particular historic significance to satisfy the requirements of NPPF paragraph

77 in that it is not possible to demonstrate that the area is a green area that is

demonstrably special to the local community and holds a particular historic

significance.

3.16 In order to accord with the guidance in the NPPF on the designation of Local

Green Space and to satisfy Basic Condition 1, it is recommended that sites

LGS2 and LGS3 should be deleted from Policy HG1 and the sites deleted

from the Policies Map.

3.17 The wording of the policy is ambiguous and confusing as it combines the

designation of the Local Green Spaces and the policy approach to

considering development proposals on them. A modification is recommended

to clarify the policy wording to ensure it accords with NPPF paragraphs 78

and 87.

Recommendation 4: Revise the wording of Policy HG1 to read:

“The following area is designated as a Local Green Space: LGS1

Churchyard.


“Development on the Local Green Space will not be approved other than

in very special circumstances.”

Delete sites LGS2 and LGS3 from Policy HG1 and the Policies Map.

Policy HG2: New Green Spaces

3.18 The policy seeks to secure new greenspace provision through new housing

development to address the deficits in the parish which are set out in Table 1.

This table shows that there is an overall surplus of green space in the parish

largely as a consequence of the location of the cricket pitch in the village. The

Parish Council is proposing to develop a children’s play area on land adjacent

to the village hall to address the deficit in play facilities. The proposals for the

housing development at the site off Spring Lane specify that 40% of the site

should be retained as open space for a village green which will help meet the

deficit for amenity and natural green space.

3.19 Other development opportunities, including the other site allocations, are

likely to be small scale and are unlikely to be able to accommodate publicly

accessible green space within the site. Where CIL payments are made, the

Qualifying Body has confirmed that they will be used to deliver community

objectives including the provision of green space.

3.20 As worded Policy HG2 does not make it clear what types of open space are

required, where they are to be provided or how they are to be delivered.

However, it is acknowledged that the two proposals in the plan for a play area

and village green will help to meet the parish’s need for additional green

space.

3.21 NPPF paragraph 204 sets out the tests for the acceptability of planning

obligations including that planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact

of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. They

should not be used to remedy a deficit.

3.22 It is recommended that this policy should be revised to set out clearly how

developers of other housing sites should contribute towards the provision of

the new green space to meet the needs of their new development where this

cannot be provided on site, for example through Community Infrastructure

Levy.

3.23 Criterion b) of the policy states that new green spaces should be well

connected to residential areas and other community facilities. This is a matter

that should have been taken into account in the choice of the proposed sites

for new green space and there is no need to include it in the policy. I have

concerns that there is no footpath access to the proposed village green and it

is only accessible by road. However, the development proposals include a

new footpath link and improvements to the highway. There is also a

Community Action to improve the rights of way network in the parish.


3.24 It is considered that the policy does not accord with national planning policy

as it is not clearly and unambiguously worded so that it could be applied

consistently by decision makers and therefore does not satisfy Basic

Condition 1. The recommendation proposes modifications to overcome this

by allocating the green space proposed in the Plan: the children’s play area

which is proposed to be deleted from Policy HG1 and the proposed village

green included in the proposals under Policy H2. Additional text should be

added to the justification to explain how the new green spaces are to be

delivered, for example, through Community Infrastructure Levy and other

sources of funding.

Recommendation 5: Revise Policy HG2 as follows:

“New green space shall be provided to meet the identified shortfall in

the parish and the needs of new housing development at:

A) Land to the west of the village hall (site NGS1) is allocated for a

children’s play area.

B) Land to the west of Springs Lane (site NGS2) is allocated as a village

green.”

Add text in the justification to explain how the green spaces will be

delivered eg through CIL payments. Show sites on Policies Map.

Policy HG3: Local non-designated heritage assets

3.25 The policy proposes the designation of 5 structures as non-designated

heritage features. Appendix 3 provides a brief description of each structure.

The location of each is shown on the Policies map. Photographs of some of

the structures are included within the text of the justification.

3.26 Although the policy is headed “Local Non-designated heritage assets”, the

policy is not explicit about the status of the designation and is worded that the

assets are identified for conservation. To improve the clarity of the policy, a

modification is recommended to designate the structures as “non-designated

heritage assets”.

3.27 NPPF paragraph 135 advises that the effect of development proposals on the

significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account

in determining the application. Core Strategy Policy P11 supports the

conservation of locally significant undesignated heritage assets.

3.28 Representations have been received stating that the policy is not clear how

different scales of development proposals will need to address this policy. I

consider that the final paragraph of the policy in conjunction with national

guidance in NPPF paragraphs 131 and 135 provides adequate guidance on

how planning applications affecting these assets are to be considered.


3.29 It would be helpful to plan users to include a fuller description of the

significance of each structure that is designated under this policy with

photographs and detailed location plan in the Appendix.

3.30 I have considered the merits of each building and from the limited information

available have no reason to question the merits of the World War II assets

identified on the Thorp Arch Estate. The direction pointers of the West Riding

signpost have unfortunately been replaced by modern pointers and it has as a

consequence lost its integrity. The Rudgate Roman Road is a tarmacked road

with an extension into the industrial estate. The description in Appendix 3

states that it is “Believed to follow the course of the Roman Road”. It is

considered that its historic significance is not clearly justified, and it should not

therefore be included in the policy.

3.31 Policy HG3 states that development proposals should have regard to how it

might impact on the “sustainability” of the heritage asset. It is not clear how

this is to be interpreted. It is recommended that the terminology be revised to

accord with that of the NPPF and Core Strategy.


Revise the first sentence of the policy to read: “The following assets

have been designated as non-designated heritage assets.”

Delete the West Riding road sign post and the Rudgate-Roman Road

from the policy, the Policies Map and supporting documentation.

Revise the second sentence of the policy to read “Development

proposals affecting these assets should demonstrate how they will

contribute to the conservation and enhancement of these non-

designated heritage assets.”

Include fuller descriptions of the significance of the structures identified

as non-designated heritage assets with photographs in the Appendix

together with more detailed maps to show the structures and their

curtilages.

Policy HG4: Design in the Village Centre

3.32 The policy sets out a number of factors to be considered in the design of new

development. The policy is headed “in the Village Centre”, however, the area

to which the policy is to be applied is not shown on the Policies Map. A

recommendation is made to clarify the interpretation of the policy that the

boundary of the area to which the policy applies should be shown on the

Policies Map.

3.33 Paragraph 58 of the NPPF sets out the national planning policy approach to

promoting good design in development. It is considered that Policy HG4 will

contribute to the conservation of the historic environment and landscape


setting of the historic village which is designated as a conservation area in

accordance with national and local strategic policies.

3.34 Subject to the modification it is considered that the policy meets the Basic

Conditions 1 and 3.

Recommendation 7: Show the boundary of the area to which Policy HG4

applies on the Policies Map.

Policy HG5 Key Views

3.35 The policy states that development proposals should respect and maintain 16

key views in order to maintain the character and appearance of the village.

The views include five from the approach roads into the village where the

church can be seen which are identified in the Walton Conservation Area

Appraisal. The remainder are views along the roads in the village and from

the rear of the church to the surrounding countryside.

3.36 I have considered whether the policy would give rise to a blanket restriction

on development around the village contrary to national policy. I consider that

the policy is worded with sufficient flexibility so as not to place a blanket

restriction on development around the village. The policy will contribute to the

conservation of the setting of the historic church and conservation area in

accordance with Core Strategy Policy P11.

3.37 It is considered that Policy HG5 meets Basic Conditions 1 and 3.

Policy HG6 Former Thorp Arch Royal Ordnance Filling Factory

3.38 This policy proposes that a design code and design parameters should be

developed for the Thorp Arch Estate in partnership between Leeds City

Council, Walton Parish Council, the owners of the Estate and Historic

England in order to provide a robust framework for bringing forward the

detailed aspects of any future development and securing the heritage

significance of the site.

3.39 It is considered that this is an aspiration for a Community Action and not a

land use planning policy and therefore does not meet Basic Condition 1. It is

recommended that it should be deleted and revised to form a Community

Action.

3.40 Policy BE3(c) sets out a requirement for development proposals in the

boundaries of the ROFF to take place within the context of an agreed design

code. The new Community Action could be placed in the Business and

Employment Section alongside Policy BE3 as revised.

Recommendation 8: Delete Policy HG6. Include the aspiration as a Community

Action within the Business and Employment Section.


Community Facilities

Policy CF1: Protecting existing community assets

3.41 This policy proposes firstly that the church, village hall and public house are

to be nominated as assets of community value. Secondly it proposes that

reasonable efforts should be made to secure their continued use for their

current use and/or alternative provision is made.

3.42 The nomination of assets of community value is a matter for the local

community and is not a land use planning matter. The first part of the policy

does not therefore accord with national policy and should be deleted and

rephrased as a Community Action.

3.43 The Neighbourhood Plan policies cannot indicate whether planning

permission should be permitted for a particular form of development. NPPF

paragraph 2 states that applications for planning permission must be

determined in accordance with the development plan unless material

considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan consists of the

Local Plan as well as the Neighbourhood Plan and there may be other

matters that have to be considered before granting planning permission.

Modifications are proposed to these policies to avoid this form of wording to

take account of national policy.

3.44 It would be helpful to plan users to include an explanation in the justification

about what measures will be expected to demonstrate that reasonable efforts

have been made to secure their continued use.

Recommendation 9: Revise Policy CF1 as follows:

Delete the first sentence.

Revise the second sentence to read: “Proposals for the change of use

of a community facility listed below shall demonstrate that reasonable

efforts have been made to ….”

Include an explanation in the justification about what measures will be

expected to be undertaken to demonstrate that reasonable efforts have

been made to secure their continued use.

Policy CF2: New and improved community facilit ies

3.45 The policy sets out criteria to be used in considering new or improved

community recreational facilities. It is considered that the policy accords with

Core Strategy Policy P9 and satisfies the Basic Conditions.


Transport

Policy T1: Traffic Management

3.46 The policy requires contributions towards traffic calming and control

measures from development proposals that directly access the main routes

through the village. These are to be proportional to the size and development

and anticipated traffic flows.

3.47 Leeds City Council has confirmed that traffic calming and control measures

are not on the Regulation 123 list, so it would not be unreasonable to request

Section 106 funding if they were required. Alternatively, the Parish Council

could propose that their preferred traffic calming scheme be funded from their

own CIL monies.

3.48 It is considered that the Policy meets Basic Conditions 1 and 3.

Policy T2: Public Rights of Way

3.49 The first part of the policy asks that where feasible all new housing

developments should provide safe pedestrian access to existing footpaths. It

is considered that this is deliverable and includes a measure of flexibility.

3.50 The second part of the policy sets out a more wide ranging and onerous

requirement that “any new development” should demonstrate how it improves

off road and non motorised routes that link the village together and to the

surrounding countryside and nearby communities and facilities.

3.51 The Plan includes details of aspirational off road routes and includes a

Community Action to create a more extensive network of paths within the

parish. The proposals under Policy H2 seek to improve the connectivity of the

site through a pedestrian footway to the village. The other housing allocations

do not include any requirements on improved pedestrian routes.

3.52 As worded, the second part of Policy T2 could be applied to all forms of

development and does not set out clear and deliverable requirements as to

how development proposals are to contribute to the footpath improvements in

the parish.

3.53 It is therefore considered that the second part of Policy T2 does not accord

with national policy as it is not deliverable and is not clear and unambiguous.

Recommendation 10: Delete the second part of Policy T2 and criteria a) to c).

Housing

3.54 Walton is a small village in the rural area in the Outer North East Housing

Market Characteristic Area where only limited housing development has been

envisaged in the Leeds UDP and Core Strategy. Core Strategy Policy H2 sets


out the principles to be considered in assessing the suitability of small scale

windfall sites. Factors to be considered include

• the capacity of transport, educational and health infrastructure;

• for developments of 5 or more dwellings the location should accord with

the plan’s Accessibility Standards;

• a site should not be developed if it has intrinsic value as amenity space or

for recreation or for nature conservation, or makes a valuable contribution

to the visual, historic and/or spatial character of an area.

3.55 The UDP identified the countryside around the village as Rural Land. The

emerging SAP proposes that this area of countryside should become Green

Belt. The City Council and Parish Council has prepared a Statement of

Common Ground which states that:

“It is agreed that it was not the intention of the Council’s Green Belt proposals

to seek to prevent any locally-led small-scale housing proposals being

brought forward through a Neighbourhood Plan, where appropriate.

“It is agreed that should the housing allocations within the NP form part of the

Made NP that the Council will notify the SAP Inspectors and seek to make

minor changes to proposed new SAP Green Belt boundary to exclude the

housing sites (if deemed necessary).”

3.56 Consultations with the community have sought views on the scale of

development in the plan in terms of “up to 20 dwellings” and “over 20

dwellings” and have considered the suitability of 7 sites of varying sizes

around the village which were selected in discussion with the Local Planning

Authority. The site assessment criteria have been developed from the plan’s

objectives.

3.57 The Sites Assessment Document includes a description of the sites and an

assessment of the seven sites against the assessment criteria. Table 2 in this

document which is also included in the NP as Table 2 incorrectly refers to

these as “Sustainability Objectives”. I have proposed a modification to correct

this by deleting the word “sustainability” from the title to Table 2 in the NP and

Sites Assessment Document.

3.58 The introduction to the Housing section of the Plan sets out a succinct

summary of the background evidence, including the process of site selection,

prepared to justify the housing site allocations.

3.59 The identification of potential sites commenced with a discussion with senior

planning officers from Leeds City Council who were asked to give an

independent assessment of the neighbourhood area to indicate all potential

sites that they deemed suitable for residential development. They were

informed of the villagers strongly expressed aspiration to protect views of the

church from all approach roads into the village. In addition, sites known to

have been previously considered and land that had previously been subject to


planning applications were discussed. As a result of this assessment, a total

of seven sites were identified as potentially suitable and sustainable.

3.60 The PPG states that “A neighbourhood plan can allocate sites for

development, including housing. A qualifying body should carry out an

appraisal of options and an assessment of individual sites against clearly

identified criteria.” I am satisfied that an assessment of potential sites has

been carried out as required by national planning policy and consulted on with

the community.

3.61 In order to understand the housing need of the area, the Walton and Thorp

Arch Housing Market Assessment (HMA) was produced on behalf of Leeds

City Council by Re’New (January 2016). It assessed housing market

conditions of both Walton and the adjacent village of Thorp Arch and

projected anticipated additional demand. The breakdown of anticipated

demand demonstrated that there ought to be a focus on provision of smaller

“starter homes” and opportunities for the elderly seeking to downsize in new

housing development.

3.62 The Housing Market Assessment also demonstrated that beyond local

identified need in Walton, there is evidenced local demand arising from the

surrounding area (Wetherby) potentially expressing demand in the Walton /

Thorp Arch area.

3.63 The Sites Assessment report includes an evaluation of the changing

population and housing trends from Census data.

3.64 A representation has been made putting forward an alternative site. The

Qualifying Body has stated that the site was only brought to their attention at

the Regulation 14 (pre-Submission Plan stage). As the site was a small infill

site in the Conservation Area there were concerns about the possible impact

of development proposals on the Conservation Area which could only be

assessed through the consideration of detailed proposals set out in a

planning application. I agree with the Qualifying Body that although the site

has not been considered as an option in the plan, the proposed development

of the site could be considered through a planning application as an infill site.

3.65 It is evident that the plan makers are seeking to deliver a housing

development that would include additional open space to meet the deficit

identified under the Green Spaces section and to deliver a suitable mix of

housing including affordable social housing, starter homes, family homes and

homes suitable for older people wishing to downsize. The site included in the

assessment, however, are limited in that only one site was included in the

assessment that was large enough to accommodate sufficient homes to

provide a reasonable mix of housing and the open space.

Recommendation 11: Delete “sustainability” from the title and heading to Table

2 in the WNP and Sites Assessment Document.


Policy H1: Sites for new homes

3.66 The policy allocates three sites for housing development and sets out eight

design principles. The first paragraph of the policy refers to Policy HG4 and

repeats the last paragraph in the justification. It is considered to be

unnecessary repetition and I recommend that it be deleted.

3.67 The second paragraph is not clearly worded and a revision is proposed to

allocate the sites for “housing”.

3.68 The policy is worded that “approximately 20 new homes” are to be provided

and this gives an indication of the amount of new development envisaged

without setting a limit or target. However, some of the background evidence

reports refer to “up to 20 homes”. It is recommended that the justification and

background evidence reports are reviewed to ensure that, as appropriate,

they are consistent with the wording of the policy.

Recommendation 12: Revise Policy H1 as follows:

Delete the first paragraph of the policy referring to Policy HG4.

Revise the second paragraph to read: “…are allocated for housing to

provide approximately 20 new homes within the plan period.”

The justification to the policy and background evidence should be

revised, as appropriate, to be consistent with the wording of the policy.

Policy H2: Land west of Springs Lane / Walton Cricket Pitch

3.69 Site H2 at Springs Lane is the main allocation in the Plan. The Concept

Statement in Appendix 4 includes a proposal for a mixed development of 14

dwellings, including affordable homes, a new village green, boundary

landscaping, a footpath link to the village and improvements to the highway.

3.70 The site is detached from the built up area of the village and approached by a

narrow lane that lacks any footways. It is a greenfield site and part of a larger

arable field. The justification for the site refers to it helping to “integrate the

cricket ground into the village”. I consider that this statement is somewhat

optimistic and the likelihood is that the development will result in a small

development of houses detached from the main village.

3.71 Six representations have been made questioning the suitability of the site at

Springs Lane. Comments were made on its location well outside the village

meaning that it would not be suitable for starter homes or homes for older

people. They proposed that other infill sites should have been considered.

3.72 The viability of the proposal has been questioned. I have asked the Qualifying

Body whether they have undertaken an assessment of the viability and


deliverability of the proposed development. They have stated that they have

worked with the landowner on establishing the key principles of the

development.

3.73 The PPG states that “If the policies and proposals are to be implemented as

the community intended a neighbourhood plan needs to be deliverable. The

National Planning Policy Framework requires that the sites and the scale of

development identified in a plan should not be subject to such a scale of

obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is

threatened.”

3.74 As this site is a key proposal of the Plan, I have asked the Qualifying Body to

demonstrate that the housing development proposed in Policy H2 and the

linked package of proposals is viable. A Viability Assessment has been

undertaken which has demonstrated that the scheme is comfortably viable.

The design principles have taken account of and build on those set out in the

NPPF and Core Strategy Policy P10. It is considered that subject to the

modifications set out in Recommendation 13, Policy H2 satisfies Basic

Conditions 1 and 3.

Policy H3: Land south of Main Street (Coal Yard)

Policy H4: Land north of Hall Park Road

3.75 These policies set out further detailed considerations for each site allocation.

The first paragraph of each policy states that development proposals “should

accord with the recommendations and conditions stipulated in H1 and the

Concept Statemen at Appendix 4, including”.

3.76 The Concept Statement in Appendix 4 sets out supplementary advice in the

form of site opportunities and considerations, an indicative layout for each site

and general design principles. These principles have been included in the

criteria of Policy H1. It is recommended that to avoid the repetition of this

paragraph in each policy, it should be included as the final paragraph in the

introductory text.

3.77 The design principles have taken account of and build on those set out in the

NPPF and Core Strategy Policy P10. It is considered that subject to the

modifications recommended these policies satisfy Basic Conditions 1 and 3.

Recommendation 13: Revise the first paragraph of Policies H2, H3 and H4 to

read:

“In addition to taking account of the criteria set out in Policies HG4 and

H1, proposals for developing this site should be designed and laid out

to:”

Add the following to the end of the Introduction immediately before

Policy H1: “Appendix 4 sets out the Concept Statement for Housing

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability


Development in the Walton Plan area. The Concept Statement includes

matters to be considered by developers of each site when preparing

their proposals including indicative site layouts.”

Policy H5: Residential car parking

3.78 This policy is negatively worded and is unclear; it states that development

proposals should not result in any development having spaces below the

standards set by the City Council. The second sentence refers to “parking

site” being accommodated within the curtilage of the development site.

3.79 It is considered that the policy is unclear and unnecessary as it adds no

locally specific details to the Leeds City Council parking standards and

therefore does not accord with national planning policy.

3.80 Reference to the need for housing development to comply with the Leeds

parking standards could be included in the introduction to the housing section.

Recommendation 14: Delete Policy H5.

Add the following to the introduction to the Housing section: “Parking

provision should be made in accordance with the Leeds City Council

Parking Standards.”

Business and employment

Policy BE1: Information and Communications Technology

3.81 I make no comments on this policy that seeks to improve technology

infrastructure.

Policy BE2: Supporting employment and enterprise

3.82 This policy supports the development of small scale enterprises including the

diversification of land based businesses that meet the needs of and are

compatible with the rural character of the parish. The policy cites live-work

units as an example of how the policy may be applied.

3.83 The policy does not state where it will be applied: whether it is to the whole

parish, the village or Thorp Arch Estate. I have asked the Qualifying Body

where they intend this policy to be applied. They have stated that it is to be

applied throughout the Parish. I consider that the policy is not appropriate for

considering proposals on the Thorp Arch estate where large and medium

scale development may be feasible. It would be helpful to plan users if the

Policy wording or Policies Map showed that it applied to the parish outside the

Thorp Arch Estate.


3.84 The Qualifying Body has confirmed that the reference to live-work units is

intended to show support for those in the village who want to run a business

from home and may need ancillary office accommodation which would require

a change of use.

3.85 It is considered that the example of “live-work” units as a type of development

that would be acceptable under this policy could be interpreted as support for

new housing with an office or workshop in the countryside outside the village

and may not be in accordance with NPPF paragraph 55.

3.86 Generally the extension of an existing dwelling to provide ancillary office or

other business accommodation would be considered on its merits. The

reference to it as an example is ambiguous and adds nothing to this policy. It

is recommended that it be deleted.

3.87 The policy is considered to be wide ranging and it would be helpful to plan

users to explain that development proposals in the countryside should comply

with national and strategic policies on development in the countryside.

Recommendation 15: Revise Policy BE2 to read:

“Within the Plan area outside the Thorp Arch Estate..……diversification

of land based businesses, that satisfy national and local strategic

planning policies, that meet the needs of and are compatible with the

rural character of the parish, will be supported provided that they:…”

Show the area to which this policy applies on the Policies Map.

Policy BE3: Thorp Arch estate

3.88 The policy sets out general support for the continued growth of small and

medium sized enterprises on the Thorp Arch Estate subject to three criteria.

The third criterion refers to development taking account of the parameters of

an agreed design code for the Estate.

3.89 My recommendation on Policy HG6 is that the preparation of the design code

should be made a community aspiration.

3.90 A representation has been made questioning why the policy is restricted to

“small and medium sized enterprises”. It also suggests that a consistent

approach should be adopted in planning policy across the Thorp Arch Estate.

3.91 Thorp Arch Estate is an important employment area that is safeguarded

under Leeds Core Strategy Policy EC3 with existing site allocations carried

forward under Policy EC1. The Site Allocations Plan Policy EG1 is proposing

to allocate various vacant parcels of land within the Estate that were

previously allocated in the Leeds UDP for employment use or mixed use.


Only part of the estate lies within the Neighbourhood Plan area, the

remainder is within Thorp Arch parish.

3.92 The policy sets out three matters that development proposals within the

Walton parish part of the Thorp Arch Estate should satisfy: that it is not

intensively developed and retains its parkland style, traffic impact, pollution

prevention and development being in accordance with the context and

parameters of an agreed design code.

3.93 Core Strategy Policy T2 addresses traffic impacts. Policy G8 and to some

extent Policy G9 address the impact on environmentally protected areas. The

objectives of the Core Strategy address environmental safeguarding matters

such as pollution prevention. The Estate is a general employment area and

no evidence has been submitted to justify limiting employment development

to small and medium enterprises.

3.94 Previous planning applications for the area have included a Design Code.

However, the applications have been withdrawn and the Design Code has no

status. Leeds City Council has indicated that they would support the

implementation of criterion (c ) for new development proposals.

3.95 It is considered that, apart from criterion (c ), the policy is superfluous as

these matters are factors that are covered by policies in the Core Strategy

and the policy adds no matters of local significance. It is recommended

therefore that the first paragraph and criteria (a) and (b) of the policy should

be deleted. In order to ensure that there is a consistent policy approach to the

whole employment area which crosses parish boundaries, it would be

appropriate for the policy covering future development proposals to be set out

in the Local Plan.

Recommendation 16: Delete The first paragraph and criteria (a) and (b) of

Policy BE3.

Community Actions

3.96 A number of Community Actions are included within the Neighbourhood Plan;

these are described as “projects”. The Foreword explains that the work of

developing these projects will fall to the community to progress, led and

managed by the Parish Council.

3.97 To explain how the Community Action is to be progressed, it would be helpful

to word them as follows: “The Parish Council in partnership with XYZ will

develop……”. Section 1.1 should include a statement to the effect that only

the Planning Policies will form part of the Development Plan to be used in

determining planning applications. It should make it clear that the Community

Actions do not form part of the Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Recommendation 17: revise the Community Actions to read “The Parish

Council in partnership with XYZ will develop……”.


Revise the first sentence of paragraph 1.1 to read “….Development Plan

for Leeds and the Neighbourhood Plan’s planning policies will be

used……”

Add at the end of paragraph 1.1. “The Community Actions are not

planning policies and do not form part of the Neighbourhood

Development Plan”.


4.0 Referendum

4.1 The Walton Neighbourhood Plan reflects the views held by the community as

demonstrated through the consultations and, subject to the modifications

proposed, sets out a realistic and achievable vision to support the future

improvement of the community.

4.2 I am satisfied that the Neighbourhood Plan meets all the statutory

requirements, in particular those set out in paragraph 8(1) of schedule 4B of

the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and, subject to the modifications I

have identified, meets the Basic Conditions namely:

• has regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued

by the Secretary of State;

• contributes to the achievement of sustainable development;

• is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the

Development Plan for the area;

• does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations and

human rights requirements

4.3 I am pleased to recommend to Leeds City Council that the Walton

Neighbourhood Plan should, subject to the modifications I have put

forward, proceed to referendum.

4.4 I am required to consider whether the referendum area should be extended

beyond the Neighbourhood Plan area. I have considered the proximity of the

Neighbourhood Plan area to the villages of Thorp Arch, in all the matters I

have considered I have not seen anything that suggests the referendum area

should be extended beyond the boundaries of the plan area as they are

currently defined. I recommend that the Neighbourhood Plan should proceed

to a referendum based on the neighbourhood area designated by the Leeds

City Council on 17 September 2012.


5.0 Background Documents

5.1 In undertaking this examination, I have considered the following documents

• Walton Neighbourhood Plan Submission Draft Version 2017 – 2033

• Walton Neighbourhood Plan Appendices

• Walton Neighbourhood Plan Basic Conditions Statement

• Walton Neighbourhood Plan SEA / HRA Screening Report

• Walton Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement

• Walton Site Assessments

• Walton Housing Market and Needs Assessment

• National Planning Policy Framework March 2012

• Planning Practice Guidance March 2014 (as amended)

• The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

• The Localism Act 2011

• The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012

• Leeds Local Development Framework Core Strategy adopted 12th

November 2014

• Leeds UDP 2006 Saved Policies

• Leeds Site Allocations Plan Revised Submission Draft 2017

• Walton Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan 2010

• Leeds City Council Parking Standards


6.0 Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Revise the second paragraph of section 1.2 to read

“Following a review of the Parish boundary in 2014, the City Council

approached both Walton and Thorp Arch Parish Councils in 2015

regarding the potential of changing the boundaries of the

Neighbourhood Areas to accord with the revised parish boundaries.

Following consideration by both Parish Councils it was agreed that the

Neighbourhood Plans should be based on the Neighbourhood Areas as

originally designated; the boundary for the Walton Neighbourhood Plan

is shown on Map 1.”

Recommendation 2: Include an assessment of how the plan has had regard to

the Human Rights Act in the Basic Conditions Statement.

Recommendation 3: Distinguish the Plan’s policies from the supporting text,

for example by setting them in boxes. Include more detailed inset maps

of the sites on the Policies Map.

Recommendation 4: Revise the wording of Policy HG1 to read:

“The following area is designated as a Local Green Space: LGS1

Churchyard.

“Development on the Local Green Space will not be approved other than

in very special circumstances.”

Delete sites LGS2 and LGS3 from Policy HG1 and the Policies Map.


“New green space shall be provided to meet the identified shortfall in

the parish and the needs of new housing development at:

C) Land to the west of the village hall (site NGS1) is allocated for a

children’s play area.

D) Land to the west of Springs Lane (site NGS2) is allocated as a village

green.”

Add text in the justification to explain how the green spaces will be

delivered eg through CIL payments. Show sites on Policies Map.


Revise the first sentence of the policy to read: “The following assets

have been designated as non-designated heritage assets.”

Delete the West Riding road sign post and the Rudgate-Roman Road

from the policy, the Policies Map and supporting documentation.

Revise the second sentence of the policy to read “Development

proposals affecting these assets should demonstrate how they will


contribute to the conservation and enhancement of these non-

designated heritage assets.”

Include fuller descriptions of the significance of the structures identified

as non-designated heritage assets with photographs in the Appendix

together with more detailed maps to show the structures and their

curtilages.

Recommendation 7: Show the boundary of the area to which Policy HG4

applies on the Policies Map.

Recommendation 8: Delete Policy HG6. Include the aspiration as a Community

Action within the Business and Employment Section.

Recommendation 9: Revise Policy CF1 as follows:

Delete the first sentence.

Revise the second sentence to read: “Proposals for the change of use

of a community facility listed below shall demonstrate that reasonable

efforts have been made to ….”

Include an explanation in the justification about what measures will be

expected to be undertaken to demonstrate that reasonable efforts have

been made to secure their continued use.

Recommendation 10: Delete the second part of Policy T2 and criteria a) to c).

Recommendation 11: Delete “sustainability” from the title and heading to Table

2 in the WNP and Sites Assessment Document.

Recommendation 12: Revise Policy H1 as follows:

Delete the first paragraph of the policy referring to Policy HG4.

Revise the second paragraph to read: “…are allocated for housing to

provide approximately 20 new homes within the plan period.”

The justification to the policy and background evidence should be

revised, as appropriate, to be consistent with the wording of the policy.

Recommendation 13: Revise the first paragraph of Policies H2, H3 and H4 to

read:

“In addition to taking account of the criteria set out in Policies HG4 and

H1, proposals for developing this site should be designed and laid out

to:”

Add the following to the end of the Introduction immediately before

Policy H1: “Appendix 4 sets out the Concept Statement for Housing

Development in the Walton Plan area. The Concept Statement includes

matters to be considered by developers of each site when preparing

their proposals including indicative site layouts.”


Recommendation 14: Delete Policy H5.

Add the following to the introduction to the Housing section: “Parking

provision should be made in accordance with the Leeds City Council

Parking Standards.”

Recommendation 15: Revise Policy BE2 to read:

“Within the Plan area outside the Thorp Arch Estate..……diversification

of land based businesses, that satisfy national and local strategic

planning policies, that meet the needs of and are compatible with the

rural character of the parish, will be supported provided that they:…”

Show the area to which this policy applies on the Policies Map.

Recommendation 16: Delete The first paragraph and criteria (a) and (b) of

Policy BE3.

Recommendation 17: revise the Community Actions to read “The Parish

Council in partnership with XYZ will develop……”.

Revise the first sentence of paragraph 1.1 to read “….Development Plan

for Leeds and the Neighbourhood Plan’s planning policies will be

used……”

Add at the end of paragraph 1.1. “The Community Actions are not

planning policies and do not form part of the Neighbourhood

Development Plan”.